Intel Arc A770 vs NVIDIA CMP 40HX Comparison

NVIDIA CMP 40HX and Intel Arc A770 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, with the former built for a specific niche and the latter as a general-purpose consumer card. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in compute workloads, but the analysis is more nuanced when considering architecture and intended use. The Intel Arc A770 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 14.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 17.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, yet the NVIDIA card holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 93rd percentile compared to Intel’s 90th.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770 is the outright winner in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 109,175 against the CMP 40HX’s 93,395, a delta of -14.5% from Intel’s perspective. The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap, with Intel scoring 94,284 versus NVIDIA’s 77,879, a 17.4% difference. This suggests Intel’s architecture is more efficient at translating raw compute power into actual benchmark results, particularly in APIs that leverage modern graphics features.

The NVIDIA CMP 40HX, despite losing both direct comparisons, has a higher average benchmark score across all its tested workloads. Its average is 85,637, while the Arc A770 averages 68,809. This discrepancy comes from the fact that NVIDIA’s benchmarks are limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, whereas Intel’s dataset also includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2,969, which drags its average down. When looking at percentile ranking, the CMP 40HX outperforms 93% of all GPUs, while the Arc A770 outperforms 90%, indicating that NVIDIA’s card is closer to the top of the overall performance distribution despite losing the direct matchups.

For use-case splits, the data points toward Intel for anyone prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan environments. The NVIDIA card, however, has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for gaming or any visual output task, whereas the Arc A770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0 connections. This makes the Intel card the only viable option for interactive workloads, regardless of benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. NVIDIA’s CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, packing 10,800 million transistors into a 445 mm² die with a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². Intel’s Arc A770 uses the DG2-512 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, fitting 21,700 million transistors into a smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 53.4M per mm². This density advantage allows Intel to nearly double the shading units, with 4,096 compared to NVIDIA’s 2,304.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. NVIDIA uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel doubles the capacity to 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, pushing bandwidth to 512.0 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor Intel, with a base of 2100 MHz and boost of 2400 MHz, versus NVIDIA’s 1470 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. The memory clock is higher on Intel as well, at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) compared to NVIDIA’s 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Feature sets diverge on ray tracing and tensor cores. NVIDIA includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, while Intel lists 32 RT cores and no tensor cores. This means NVIDIA’s card has dedicated hardware for AI workloads via tensor cores, a capability Intel lacks entirely. The pixel rate and texture rate also favor Intel overwhelmingly, with 307.2 GPixel/s and 614.4 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA’s 105.6 GPixel/s and 237.6 GTexel/s.

Power and interface specs differ as well. The CMP 40HX has a TDP of 185 W with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested 450 W PSU, while the Arc A770 draws 225 W with dual connectors (6-pin plus 8-pin) and a 550 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is a major point of separation: NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a legacy interface, while Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x16, which offers far more bandwidth for data transfer. NVIDIA’s card has no display outputs, reinforcing its mining-only purpose, whereas Intel provides modern display connectivity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows Intel’s dominance with a score of 109,175 against NVIDIA’s 93,395. The 14.5% delta indicates that Intel’s architecture translates its higher shading unit count and clock speeds into a meaningful compute advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial lead in a widely used compute benchmark.

The Vulkan test widens the gap further. Intel scores 94,284, while NVIDIA manages only 77,879, a 17.4% difference. Vulkan is often more sensitive to driver overhead and architectural efficiency, and the data suggests Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture handles this API more effectively than NVIDIA’s Turing design. The fact that Intel wins by a larger margin in Vulkan than in OpenCL points to better low-level API optimization.

NVIDIA’s only other benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is its stronger result relative to its own Vulkan score. The CMP 40HX’s Vulkan score of 77,879 is 16.6% lower than its OpenCL score, while Intel’s Vulkan score of 94,284 is 13.6% lower than its OpenCL score. This indicates that NVIDIA’s card loses more performance when switching from OpenCL to Vulkan, further highlighting Intel’s API versatility.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result for Intel, at 2,969, is an additional data point that NVIDIA lacks entirely, as the CMP 40HX has no corresponding test. This absence of a DX12 benchmark for NVIDIA means the comparison is incomplete, but the available data consistently favors Intel in every measurable category.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX has an average benchmark score of 85,637, which is higher than the Intel Arc A770’s 68,809. However, this is skewed because Intel’s average includes a 3DMark result of 2,969, which is not part of NVIDIA’s benchmark set.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A770 in Vulkan?

A: The Arc A770 scores 94,284 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the CMP 40HX’s 77,879. This represents a 17.4% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the NVIDIA CMP 40HX support display output?

A: No, the CMP 40HX has no display outputs. It is designed exclusively for compute tasks, whereas the Arc A770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, double the 8 GB found on the NVIDIA CMP 40HX. Intel also has higher bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX includes 288 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc A770 has no tensor cores listed. This gives NVIDIA a dedicated hardware advantage for AI-related workloads.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: Intel’s Arc A770 has a transistor density of 53.4M per mm², more than double NVIDIA’s 24.3M per mm², despite using a smaller 406 mm² die versus NVIDIA’s 445 mm².

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The process node is 12 nm for NVIDIA versus 6 nm for Intel, with transistor counts of 10,800 million versus 21,700 million. Die size is 445 mm² versus 406 mm², and transistor density is 24.3M versus 53.4M per mm². Clock speeds show base clocks of 1470 MHz versus 2100 MHz and boost clocks of 1650 MHz versus 2400 MHz.

Memory capacity is 8 GB versus 16 GB, with bandwidth at 448.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. The shading unit count is 2,304 versus 4,096, TMUs are 144 versus 256, and ROPs are 64 versus 128. Ray tracing cores are 36 versus 32, while tensor cores exist only on NVIDIA at 288. Pixel rate is 105.6 GPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 237.6 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is 7.603 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 15.21 TFLOPS versus 39.32 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratios. TDP is 185 W versus 225 W, with power connectors of 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 450 W versus 550 W. The bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. Release dates are February 2021 versus October 2022.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Arc A770 is the superior card for any compute task that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, winning both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 14.5% and 17.4%. Its 16 GB memory capacity and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth provide more headroom for large datasets, and its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface ensures faster host communication than NVIDIA’s PCIe 1.0 x4. The Arc A770 also offers display outputs, making it a functional graphics card, not just a compute accelerator.

The NVIDIA CMP 40HX, however, has its own strengths. Its higher percentile ranking (93rd versus 90th) and higher average benchmark score (85,637 versus 68,809) suggest that in a broader context, it performs closer to the top tier of GPUs. The inclusion of 288 tensor cores gives it a unique capability for AI workloads that Intel cannot match. Its lower TDP of 185 W versus 225 W and single 8-pin power connector make it easier to integrate into existing systems.

For users who need a general-purpose GPU with strong compute performance and modern display support, the Intel Arc A770 is the clear choice. For those specifically requiring tensor core acceleration or who prioritize the card’s standing among all GPUs, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX holds merit, provided its lack of display outputs and legacy PCIe interface are acceptable. The data does not support choosing NVIDIA for raw compute speed, as Intel wins every direct comparison, but the tensor cores and higher percentile rank keep the CMP 40HX relevant for specialized use cases.